Cythraul:Why would a drone fly so low over its target as to be seen by the naked eye? Isn't their nominal operational altitude like, waaaay, waaaay high up?

There were a great deal of African-Americans present at the inauguration, and from a sufficiently high altitude they take on the appearance of shadows on the ground. So the drones have to come down a little lower than normal.

Pocket Ninja:Cythraul: Why would a drone fly so low over its target as to be seen by the naked eye? Isn't their nominal operational altitude like, waaaay, waaaay high up?

There were a great deal of African-Americans present at the inauguration, and from a sufficiently high altitude they take on the appearance of shadows on the ground. So the drones have to come down a little lower than normal.

Pocket Ninja:Cythraul: Why would a drone fly so low over its target as to be seen by the naked eye? Isn't their nominal operational altitude like, waaaay, waaaay high up?

There were a great deal of African-Americans present at the inauguration, and from a sufficiently high altitude they take on the appearance of shadows on the ground. So the drones have to come down a little lower than normal.

Pocket Ninja:Cythraul: Why would a drone fly so low over its target as to be seen by the naked eye? Isn't their nominal operational altitude like, waaaay, waaaay high up?

There were a great deal of African-Americans present at the inauguration, and from a sufficiently high altitude they take on the appearance of shadows on the ground. So the drones have to come down a little lower than normal.

You ALMOST made the "something something African-Americans something something than normal people" comment. Judges take off 5 points. 84/100 clap clap clap

Even if this was real. Is the Secret Service deploying a couple of drones to monitor an event the POTUS is attending really a big deal? I mean randomly buzzing them around the country is not cool, but you have an event with Obama, the Chief Justice, and a number of other notables, it's not exactly a big deal.

If it wasn't the drone it would likely be some agents in a borrowed UH-60 with binoculars and a camera pod on the helicopter. At least the drone costs us less in gas.

I occasionally work for one of the cable networks here. Couple of years back they sent one of the hosts over to do the USO thing in Afghanistan.

They got the grand tour and were able to get up close to one of those drones. The guy there said that they're around 4 million dollars. 2.1 million of that is just the camera setup. And I'm betting those drones are getting a little long in the tooth too...

Pocket Ninja:Cythraul: Why would a drone fly so low over its target as to be seen by the naked eye? Isn't their nominal operational altitude like, waaaay, waaaay high up?

There were a great deal of African-Americans present at the inauguration, and from a sufficiently high altitude they take on the appearance of shadows on the ground. So the drones have to come down a little lower than normal.

I won't lie--I had to check three times to see it was the Onion when I first saw the story. It's not unbelievable that a President who's used them to such great effect might have a demonstration flyover (not meant to scan for trouble, just for kicks).

/live in a state that will be a test for domestic drone use//not happy about it, but not "omfg, it's armageddon and Obama is the Antichrist!" either

Mazzic518:Can those drones even fly that close in formation like that?

Funny to read the snark that the DJ unleashed when it was revealed that it was a hoax. "Well, I believed it because it's the kind of thing they might do these days. Watch out people!" Like he did everyone a favor.

I HATE the fact that there is no actual journalism left in the world. News outlets will print absolutely anything that they think will give them an edge over their competitors, only to have to retract it when the actual truth comes out. Walter Cronkite would be spinning in his grave if he saw the depths that the journalistic standard has fallen.

Aigoo:I won't lie--I had to check three times to see it was the Onion when I first saw the story. It's not unbelievable that a President who's used them to such great effect might have a demonstration flyover (not meant to scan for trouble, just for kicks).

/live in a state that will be a test for domestic drone use//not happy about it, but not "omfg, it's armageddon and Obama is the Antichrist!" either

Mazzic518: Can those drones even fly that close in formation like that?

Short answer: yes. Long answer: depends on the particular type of drone and payload (if any). Here's a vid of a different type of drone doing just that: http://defensetech.org/2012/02/01/creepycool-video-tiny-uavs-flying-i n -formation/ and here's an article stating that, until recently, they could only fly in a formation of up to six: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-pentagon-is-quietly-setting-up-fle e ts-of-killer-drones-2012-10 (bit sensational on the headline, IMO, but at least it's not Infowars).

vpb:I doubt it is possible to fly remotely operated drones in such a close formation.

Mazzic518:Can those drones even fly that close in formation like that?

I was watching some PBS thing the other night about drones and what they can and cannot do, waaay intriguing. Anyhow, they had some smaller ones and they were doing some really incredible close in flying, formation and aerobatics. In one sequence they had 9 of these things doing a figure 8 and they has to "sense" where the others were.

Also they talked about the cameras and how they send something like a 1+billion pixel video generated through 186 cameras as they fly. Each camera lenses about the size of one BB. Also showed the full size drone (jet size) that will be doing carrier landings

I don't understand why you would want to regularly infuriate yourself with examples of other people's stupidity. I mean, I like to read Engrish.com too, but at least those are people of a different colour who can't vote.

Here's a little something that we did last week that not many folks paid attention....totes real, office is next door to me and is my old boss....We developed this in the early 2000s from trying to figure out how to robotically service Hubble.

Robotically Refueling Satellites On Orbit. (And other repairs as necessary...when we configure the technology to adapt to the needs of the build.)

propasaurus:I like his fallback position when he's called on it: why wouldn't you have surveillance drones? It's an efficient use of the technology.

So, terrible, 1984 is here, evil drones when he thought Obama was doing it. Otherwise, why not use them.

Someone please explain to me how police using UAVs to monitor the skies is any scarier than having a police pilot up in a helicopter, monitoring the skies. Are we assuming that all UAVs must be armed? Why not the same assumption for police helicopters and other aircraft? Why is this particular technology so scary?

Answer: drone detractors don't know a thing about them that isn't put up on the internet without citation by some gravelly voiced asshole who has an internet radio show, and they think drones are some sort of Decepticon Terminators or something.

Corvus:I don't understand the freak out about drones. Can't you do everything with a normal plane that you can do with a drone?

I don't get this line of thinking:

Oh a plane/satellite can fly above me and photograph what I am doing? Oh ok. not a big deal.

WHAT AN UNMANNED PLANE CAN FLY ABOVE ME AND PHOTOGRAPH WHAT I AM DOING? NOW I AM OUTRAGED!!!

Why does it make any farking difference if someone is inside the plane or not? Is it because it's new technology so people are freaking out?

I feel the same way. It's just like a police helicopter, right? I think the real problem is that with a plane, helicopter, blimp, and what have you there is an amount of presence and cost involved. You hear the plane or helicopter, and it costs a lot of money to have this big thing flying around. But, if you have this little drone it sort of goes 'out of sight'. It's not intentionally being hidden, but it's harder to notice and some people think that is deliberate. With their small size, lower operating costs, and longer loiter times more governments (state, local) will have the resources to employ them and use them more.

In the end, it is just a technology. Technology isn't good or bad, it's how you use it that makes it so.

Crotchrocket Slim:propasaurus: I like his fallback position when he's called on it: why wouldn't you have surveillance drones? It's an efficient use of the technology.

So, terrible, 1984 is here, evil drones when he thought Obama was doing it. Otherwise, why not use them.

Someone please explain to me how police using UAVs to monitor the skies is any scarier than having a police pilot up in a helicopter, monitoring the skies. Are we assuming that all UAVs must be armed? Why not the same assumption for police helicopters and other aircraft? Why is this particular technology so scary?

Answer: drone detractors don't know a thing about them that isn't put up on the internet without citation by some gravelly voiced asshole who has an internet radio show, and they think drones are some sort of Decepticon Terminators or something.

The difference is simple. MONEY. It costs a lot of money to use aerial surveillance to monitor individuals using planes and helicopters. This was the major deterrent in the abuse of such technology. So removing the cost barriers involved allows for much much more abuse and monitoring. They now can fly a drone almost 24/7 with very little cost and they can monitor entire cities with a single drone. They now want to use this tech to monitor Americans wholesale.

So you keep thinking this isn't any different than a pilot in a noisy helicopter costing thousands to stay in the air over a specific target vs. a drone flying 24/7 watching anything and everything. Yup no difference at all. No way that these things will be abused. Lets leave not even discuss WHY law enforcement thinks they need these etc etc